DenpaEnthusiast
No bio...
User ID: 131
Stardew Valley did not invent a genre. Most of its mechanics are from the Harvest Moon/Story of Seasons series, which started in 1996.
That's not the same thing. In Star Trek, they were simulating battles without actually destroying their opponent's means of fighting. If you have two drone armies fight each other, the loser still gets destroyed. In Star Trek, if one side defected, the other side would have to send their ships in, and possibly sustain the losses they avoided by only stimulating the flight. In drone warfare, you've already sent your drones in and fought their drone army, so if they defect you can slaughter them. If drones are that much better than humans at fighting, they won't be able to defend themselves, because you didn't just simulate it, you actually destroyed their drones.
Maybe he was confused about what the "scales of justice" were.
Why is living in the woods a valid way to opt out, but killing yourself isn't?
MinGW and MSVC capitalize their header names differently, so it's possible they were correct for the person who wrote them.
My family tried to convince me she could still hear and understand
My family did this too. On the one hand, I want to argue back; a month ago she could barely hear us when she was directly looking at us and had a hearing aid, do you really think it's better now that her eyes don't open and there's an oxygen machine running constantly? On the other hand, that will just make my mother sadder and not actually help anything.
Either way, you have my condolences.
Not him, but I did basically the same thing you did, except I was less physically active, for about 15 months. The hunger pangs got less severe after a month or so, but never fully went away, and the cognitive problems (lack of focus, slower reasoning, less ability to subconsciously understand references) started half a week in and didn't stop until I started gaining the weight back.
You have neglected to mention option 3: avoidance. Instead of requiring people to change either their clothes or their opinion, just give people the option to not work with people who make them unavoidably afraid or aroused.
- Prev
- Next
Consider the following analogy. We're planning to go out to eat. You suggest a restaurant, but I say I don't want to eat there. You suggest a second restaurant, I also didn't want to eat there. You suggest a third, I shoot it down again. At some point, it's reasonable to demand that I either stop declining your suggestions, or provide some of my own.
This is where Freddie is with wokeness. He says "woke", they say that's not good label. He says "identity politics", they reject that too. He says "CRT", that's also not accurate. The article isn't an isolated demand that they label themselves, it comes after his attempts to label them have been rejected.
This is actually worse because the woke are not a monolithic entity. If they had a clear leader, they could be reasoned and negotiated with. But because they're diffuse with no set leadership, woke group A is under no obligation to respect any deals made with woke group B, and there's no incentive to come to any sort of consensus. They won't be punished for defying their boss.
More options
Context Copy link